On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> Ep 2;1 And
you hath he quickened, who WERE
dead in trespasses and
> sins
>
> Quickened as in
made ALIVE those that were DEAD....
>
> problem is so many were
never made alive
>
> --- Bill Taylor <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That's a fine conjecture, Izzy. But it is only that. Yours is
not
> a
> > definitive answer. There may also be other ways to
address and
> > understand this statement. I am simply attempting to
demonstrate
> that
> > you are calling upon a doctrine to
explain that which is not
> stated
> > explicitly. If you want
to call this a "doctrine of men," then
> that
> > is fine. If
you want to call it the God's honest true, you can do
> > that, too
-- as long as you realize that it is conjecture either
> way.
>
>
> > Bill
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: ShieldsFamily
> > To:
[email protected]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:43 AM
>
> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
> >
> >
> > I understand your viewpoint.
However I don't know how else I
> would
> > describe the
lost-even Jesus said "Let the dead (obviously not
> > physically, but
spiritually) bury the dead." izzy
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Bill
> Taylor
> > Sent: Monday, July
18, 2005 10:30 PM
> > To:
[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
> >
> >
> >
> > I
agree that there is a possibility that two people can come to
> >
similar conclusions without the necessity of collaboration, but I
> >
find it highly unlikely that they would call their doctrine by the
>
> same name and this when the words themselves are not found in the
>
> Scriptures.
> >
> >
> >
> > Moreover, one would have to have received her
theology in a cave
> not to have heard of "spiritual death" on
many occasions throughout
> > her Christian experience. This doctrine
is one of the most
> commonly
> > touted beliefs in the church
-- thanks to Augustine and the
> > tremendous impact he has had on
Christendom.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am very content to believe that Judy did not know
that
> Augustine
> > is the one who first articulated this
belief, but I am reluctant
> to
> > accept that she came to it
on her own. It is far too popular a
> > teaching for that to have
happened. As with the rest of us, I am
> > confident that she too has
heard this language since her earliest
> > experience with
Christianity. And so I rather suspect that she has
> > been taught
this doctrine as if it were right there in the Bible.
> > Thus it
functions as an a priori in her beliefs.
> >
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
> > Bill
> >
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: ShieldsFamily
> >
> > To:
[email protected]
> >
> > Sent: Monday, July 18,
2005 9:54 PM
> >
> > Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
> >
>
>
> >
>
> I was thinking of when people assume that jt or
someone else
> got
> > their doctrines from someone else when
perhaps they didn't. Just
> > because a teaching is "out there"
doesn't mean it necessarily
> > affected someone who believes along
the same lines. Would you
> agree?
> > iz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Bill
> Taylor
> > Sent:
Monday, July 18, 2005 9:52 PM
> > To:
[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
>
>
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, I get your drift. But I am not so dishonest
as to claim
> > this is how it happened in my case.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Bill
> >
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
> > From: ShieldsFamily
> >
> > To:
[email protected]
> >
> > Sent: Monday,
July 18, 2005 9:38 PM
> >
>
> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John
16:13,14
> >
> >
> >
> > Just a note:
If someone learns a truth from the Lord via the
> > scriptures or
direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, might not
> they
> >
also be in agreement (without even knowing it) with someone else
>
who
> > learned and taught that same truth in previous generations?
If so,
> > that does not mean that the first one who learned it
imparted it
> to
> > the one who learned it later, does it?
That also does not mean the
> > second person who learned it owes
anything to the first person.
> And
> > it does not mean
the first one who learned it was an "authority"
> for
> > the
second one, who might never have even heard anything about the
> >
first one. One can't just assume that because a "famous" person
>
> wrote about a certain doctrine that this has affected someone
else
> > who may have the same/similar doctrine. Get my
drift? izzy
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Bill
> Taylor
>
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 8:50
PM
> > To:
[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John
16:13,14
> >
> >
> >
> > David
writes > I don't think I have seen anybody tout
>
Wesley
> > or Dake as authoritative,
> >
>
> I suppose in a narrow sense you are
partially correct,
> David. I
> > seem to remember Judy
quoting Dake at length and verbatim, yet she
> > did it without even
so much as a fleeting reference in his
> direction.
> > Hence
I concur with you, in that, while she used his beliefs
> >
authoritatively in her argumentation, she did it in a way that can
>
> hardly be construed as that of touting him.
> >
>
> This raises some interesting
questions, though, concerning
> what
> > it means to treat
another man's beliefs as "authoritative." Must
> one
> > cite
another person, when using his words, before he or she is
> >
complicit in treating his beliefs as authoritative? I think not,
>
but
> > I am curious what you think. And does one have to cite
another's
> > influence upon her theology, before she has made his
beliefs
> > "authoritative" in her frame of reference? Again, I don't
think
> so,
> > but I am wondering what you think. For
example, Judy espouses a
> > "spiritual death" doctrine, yet refuses
to acknowledge that the
> > doctrine she espouses was first set forth
by Augustine. My
> question
> > is this: Does this doctrine
not govern her thoughts as it relates
> to
> > the human
condition? Stated another way, does it not act
> > authoritatively in
her belief system? I think it does. And this
> > whether she admits
to Augustinian influences or not. But again I
> am
> >
wondering what you think.
> >
>
>
> >
>
> Or are you suggesting something
different? Like, for
> instance,
> > if I say, "This is how it
is -- blah, blah, blah," then you might
> say
> > that there
is nothing authoritative about that, because those are
> > just my
own beliefs. But if I say, "Dake or Augustine says this is
> > how it
is -- blah, blah, blah," then you will respond that I am
> > setting
forth Dake's beliefs or Augustine's beliefs as
> authoritative,
>
> and that they have now become the "doctrines of men." Is that how
> it
> > works? What if they were really Dake's beliefs all
along -- and I
> > mean his words verbatim -- but I just acted as
though they were my
> > own, would that make a difference as far as
their "authoritative"
> > quotient in your estimation?
> >
> > These are the things that I
am wondering about, because I am
> > trying to understand what makes
the espousal of one man's beliefs
> > more "authoritative," in your
eyes, than the espousal of another
> > man's beliefs. In fact, I find
it rather disturbing that you are
> so
> > willing to give
yourself and others a pass on this, but want to
> take
> >
issue with me concerning Barth and Torrance. The truth is, I have
> >
written very sparingly concerning Barth, although I do esteem him
> >
highly. And I have been very candid throughout about both my
> >
appreciation of Torrance and the influence he has had upon the
> >
formation of my beliefs -- which is indeed quite significant. But
> >
David, I want to say, so what? It is obvious that Wesley has had a
>
> similar impact upon the formation of your beliefs. What's the big
>
> deal about admitting this? Why are you so set on equivocating at
>
this
> > point? I don't get it.
> >
>
> David writes > some on
TruthTalk do believe in doctrines of
> > men. Do you
agree?
> >
> > Yes,
David, I do. But I would not agree that this is prima
> > facie a
negative thing.
> >
> >
Bill
> >
> >
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "David Miller" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> To: <
[email protected]>
>
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:59
AM
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Re:John 16:13,14
> >
> >
>
> > JD wrote:
>
> > >>> Not one person on
this site believes in
> > >
>>> "doctrines of men."
>
> >
>
> > David Miller wrote:
>
> > >> I hope that you allow
that some of us have a different
>
> > >> perspective on this
point. Some here tout Joseph Smith
>
> > >> while others tout Barth
and Torrance.
> > >
>
> > Bill wrote:
>
> > > ... and others Wesley and
Dake. What's your point?
> >
>
> > > I don't think I
have seen anybody tout Wesley or Dake as
> > authoritative,
at
> > > least not on the
level of Joseph Smith, Barth, or
> Torrance,
> > but in
any
> > case,
>
> > my point is that some on
TruthTalk do believe in doctrines
> of
> > men. Do
you
> > > agree?
>
> >
>
> > Peace be with you.
>
> > David Miller.
>
> >
>
> > ----------
>
> > "Let your speech be always with
grace, seasoned with salt,
> > that you may
>
> know how you ought to answer every
man." (Colossians 4:6)
> >
http://www.InnGlory.org>
> >
>
> > If you do not want to receive
posts from this list, send
> an
> > email to
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and
you will be unsubscribed.
> If
> > you have a
>
> friend who wants to join, tell him to
send an e-mail to
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he
will be subscribed.
> >
>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________
> Start your day
with Yahoo! - make it your home page
>
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned
with salt, that you
> may know how you ought to answer every
man." (Colossians 4:6)
>
http://www.InnGlory.org>
> If
you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and
you will be unsubscribed. If you
> have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he
will be subscribed.
>
>
